“+ 
a | 


@ 


At a special meeting of the Vesiry of Christ’s Church, Raleigh, 
held on the 18th day of June, 1840, a letter of resignation from the 


Rev. Dr. Freeman, the Reetor of the church, was read in the follow- 7 


- ing words— 
“ Dear Brethren, 
Believing that the time has fully come when I can no longer hope 
to be substantially useful to the people of my charge, I feel it my 
duty to tender to you, as I hereby do, my resignation as Rector of 
. Christ’s Church: and I beg that ‘you will accept the same, as it is 
offered in the spirit of good will and brotherly love. 
As the last day of August next, will complete the eleventh year of 
5 “my ministry among.you, I propose, should my resignation be accepted, 
“that our connexion as pasion. and parishioners terminate at that period, 


_... » if not before. 


With many thanks for past kindnesses, and with heartfelt wishes 
and earnest prayers for the future prosperity, both temporal and spiri- 


cehey tual, of yourselves and the congregation which you represent, 
he Se Jam, Brethren, 


Respectfully and affectionately : 
To , Your friend and servant, 
The Wardens and Vestry GEO. W. FREEMAN. 


¥ a of Christ’s Church Raleigh, 


June 18th, 140.” 


7 And accompanying the said letter of resignation (to be read in case 


the vestry should ask for the reasons which had induced the resig- 

nation) was a paper in the following words— 

' % Should it be inquired by the wardens and vestry on what rounds 
the Rector of Christ?s Church, has come to the conclusion that he 
can no longer hope to be generally useful to the congregation com- 


prising his present charge, he would, in all kindness, but frankly, sub- 


mit the following reply : 
B. That it is essential to the usefulness of one sustaining the relation 
A of pastor of a christian flock, that the members of his communion as 
a body, and. himself should “ be of one mind,” in regard, at least, to 
-the more important matters of faith and practice, the Rector supposes 


-» O will not be denied. The pastor and his flock, maintaining and acting 


rs 


2 


under different, especially opposite, views of christian doctrine and 
christian duty, it is easy to see that the respect entertained for him, and 
consequently his influence for good, must be greatly circumscribed. 
Instruction, reproof, warning, on those points which they differ, 
will be thrown away—nay, will probably be trampled under foot ; and 
he who offers them may soon become an object of dislike, if not of 
scorn and insult. Nor will there be hope of better success in his 
ministrations to that interesting class, which the christian minister 


habitually regards as “the hope of the flock ”—the young and rising 


generation. The prevailing sentiments and practice of their seniors 
in the church, will, with them, almost always outweigh the precepts 


of their minister, and he can never open his lips in instruction to them | 


upon any of those contested points, however important he may view 


them, with the least hope of effect. His office, as an-authoritative _ 


instructer in righteousness, has virtually come to an end. 


And it is much in this situation that the Rector of Christ’s Chinen 


finds himself placed, now at the close of the eleventh year of his 
ministry in that Church. He anda large portion of the communi- 
cants of his charge, including a large majority of the wardens and 
vestry, are directly at issue upon a subject which he~sincerely be- 
lieves to be intimately connected with the interests of vital religion 
among them—that of christians indulging in worldly amusements. 
When he first took charge of the congregation, and for several, 


perhaps five, years afterwards, such a thing as a communicant’s attend- 


“ing a_ theatre, a public ball, or even a private dancing party, was 


scarcely known among them, nor was there a voice heard i in appro- 
bation of such a practice. Indeed, it is believed that the sense of the 
great majority, if not of the whole communion, was strong and de- 


» decisive against it. ‘That the Rector was of the same opinion with 
, his flock upon the subject, the whole tenor of his teaching, both 


public and 4 private, from the beginning of his ahs has 
abundantly borne witness: and for five years he was happy in the 
belief, that he and his brethren of the communion were, in respect to 
‘the matter in question, “ of one heart and one soul.” 

Since that period, however,.a change has come over the congrega~ 
tiok—-a new spirit has arisen, and the pastor and his flock are no 
longer “ of one mind.” Successively, the questions have been virtu- 


ally raised and more or less discussed between the congregation and 
their minister ; [1] whether communicants of the church, consistently 


e 


. 


Q 
vo 


with the solemn vows which are upon them, and their sacred charac- 
ter as “temples of the Holy Ghost,” as “members of Christ, chil- 


‘dren of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven,” may give at 


their own houses, or attend at the houses of others, those worldly 
entertainments, commonly called dancing parties: and (2] whether 


they may, with like consistency, attend public places of worldly 


amusements, such as Theatres, Circuses and Balls. 
On both these questions the Rector has constantly, and he trusts 


conscientiously, yet affectionately, maintained the negative. Notwith- 
standing his frequently expressed opinions, however, and in spite of 


his most strenuous efforts to procure from his people what he deemed 
aright decision, and to establish a wholesome practice upon these 
points, the former question, it would seem, and he supposes will be 
admitted, has, for some time past, been, by the general voice, as indi- 
eated by the general practice, decided in the affirmative. While the 
latter—although pending the former, it seemed to be conceded that it 
was by no means to be sustained—has since found numerous practi- 


eal supporters, and, more recently, has, in like manner with the other, 


seemed to be affirmatively settled. 

Thus are these two questions decided, at least by the general prac- 
tice of the communicants, in direct contrariety to the known opinions, 
and the solemn public and private teaching of their minister. 

Under these circumstances—there having been no change of opi- 
nion on the part of the Rector, it still being his honest and decided be- 
lief that the practice thus established, if persevered in, will be ulti- 
mately destructive of all vital religion in the congregation, and he 
being deprived by these decisions, as he thinks, of all reasonable hope 
of further benefiting materially the people of his charge, especially 
the young to whom he has been accustomed to look with most confi- 
dence of hope—he has felt it to be his duty, and, indeed, the only 
consistent course left for him to pursue, to retire, if permitted, from 
his most. dificult post, and give place to some other person who, by 
the blessing of God, may be more successful in engaging the aflec- 
tions of the congregation, and inspiring them with respeet and confi- 


‘dence in him, as a wise and judicious pastor, and a safe spiritual guide. 


GEO. W. FREEMAN. 


Raleigh, June 18th, 1840.” 
And thereupon on motion it was resolved, that the said resignation 


be accepted, to take effect at the expiration of the current year of the 


pastor’ Ss engagement. 


a 


2° 


4 


And it was also resolved, that a committee be appointed by the se- 
nior warden to consider of and report proper resolutions, &c., on the 
occasion, to the vestry at an adjourned oe to be held on the 
25th of said month. 

And at the adjourned meeting Messrs. Badger and Bryan, the com- 


mittee so appointed, submitted the following report—which, with the, 


preamble and resolutions accompanying the same, was adopted by the 
Vestry : 

The Committee having read the paper drawn up by the Rey. Dr. 
Freeman, and containing the reasons which induced his resignation, 
tendered and accepted at the last meeting of the vestry, think it due 
to themselves, to the vestry and to the congregation, to submit some 


observations thereupon, before offering the resolutions which accom-_— 


pany this report. 

The Committee believe that there are many \aihepa in the conduct 
of life, about which religion gives us “ no positive precept,” in refer- 
ence to which there is “room for difference of opinion,” and on 


which every member of the church has a right to form his own judg- 


ment, and is not justly liable to condemnation for it by them who em- 


brace an opposite opinion. Among these things “ are certain diversions 
and a certain degree of intercourse with general society, about the 
lawfulness or unlawfulness of which, there not only does, but may 
reasonably exist, that sort of difference in opinion which prevailed 
among the Jewish converts as to the Mosaic rites, or among the 
Gentiles as to meat offered to idols.” In regard to these he that par- 
taketh hath no right to despise him that scruples to partake; nor 
hath he that entertains the scruple a right to judge him that partaketh. 
Every man, indeed should be fully persuaded in his own mind lest 
his conscience condemn him in that which his practice alloweth—but 
beyond this, in regard to these things, there is, in our view, no posi- 
tive and obligatory precept. In regard to them therefore no man has a 
right to require of another, as a point of religious duty, conformity 
with his opinion or his practice. If he can establish by argument the 
justness of his opinion, or reasonableness of his practice, he will have 
achieved the victory of truth over error, but he can have no right to 
supply by authority the defectiveness of his proof. We believe that 


“to inveigh in general terms against public assemblies, and amuse-— 


ments sanctioned by society, as if all toleration of them were posi- 


tive evidence of a worldly spirit” and “as if a practice necessarily 
ae - 


Pad 


became unchristian because it had public opinion in its favor,” “ is 
neither just nor practically useful ;” that it is “to confound things 
indifferent in themselves, with things wrong in themselves? and 
to erect out of an allowable difference of opinion on subjects left 
unsettled by positive precept, “a sort of party distinction” in the 
Church, whereby “ the union among brethren who have one common 
interest is dissolved, and the friendly collision which would be bene- 
ficial to “ both parties is exchanged for an injurious opposition.” 
With these views (held we believe by a large majority of the con- 
gregation) we and others exercising an undoubted right to decide for 
ourselves, those matters which have not been settled for us, have 
adopted the opinion that “those entertainments commonly called 


‘dancing parties ” are in themselves innocent and allowable, and hence 


we have attended them at the houses of our friends, and have given 
them at our own. We have thought that if christians in St. Paul’s 
time were at liberty when bidden, to attend feasts at the houses of 
avowed idolaters, it cannot be in itself wrong, in our day, to attend or 


give feasts, with or to, friends and acquaintances who are at the least 


nominal christians, and certainly neither professed idolaters nor athe- 
ists. As this privilege of attending such feasts in the apostle’s day 
was not restricted to those from which dancing was banished, so we 
conceive that their lawfulness now is not affected by the presence or 
absence of that amusement. 

We have been aware that our Rector entertained different views, 
we have regretted that he did, but we freely accorded to him the same 
right of judgment which we claimed for ourselves, and never for a 
moment supposed that such difference of opinion formed any barrier 
against christian communion, or kindly intercourse, or mutual res- 
pect. We felt sure that no man had a right to demand uniformity of 
opinion or, practice in matters not determined by christianity ; and 
that the relation of pastor and people did not involve the surrender on 
the part of the latter of all freedom of thought, and the adoption of 
any rule of conduct, merely because he deemed it proper and neces- 
sary to prescribe it. If we are wrong in this, then the gospel so far 


~ from having delivered us from that body of ceremonial observances 


which the Jews found intolerable, and given us some freedom of 
thought and action in regard to matters of mere expediency, (that is 


of matters not determined by the gospel) has in effect left us liable to 


the imposition of a ritual for all. the intercourse of life as strict, 


ts ‘ 6 


minute and burdensome as that of the Jews without its permanence, 
its limitations, its uniformity, or its divine original. ‘To submit to di- 
vine appointments with implicit obedience is the part of true wisdom, 
for of them we are sure the reason is the highest and best whether it 
be known to us or not; but the opinions of men can justly command 
assent only so faras they appear to be supported by adequate reasons. 
To give to these opinions the force of laws would have an effect 
upon the pastor no less injurious than upon the congregation, and if 
all right of i inquiry, of private judgment, be denied to the congrega- 
tion, it seems a very useless proceeding to put the scriptures Into 
their hands with -directions to examine—to try the doctrines they 
hear—to search the scriptures for their guidance in the path of duty. 


Yielding to others the same freedom we claim for ourselves, we had 


supposed the difference of opinion which has obtained between the 
Rector and the congregation, furnished no ground of separation, and 
we were greatly surprised. when we first learned that he thought 
otherwise. ee " 

With regard to “ Public Balls, Cireuses and Theatres,” we are not 
aware that the congregation generally, has determined any thing as 
to their propriety or expediency, at least any thing in favor of the 
two last named, but whatever may be our individual opinion respect- 
ing them, we claim no right to enforce its adoption on others. 
These, with the dancing parties, we conceive to belong to a debate- 
able subject, on which difference of opinion by no means argues dif- 
ference of principle. ‘That abstaining cannot be justly viewed as be- 
tokening “affection of righteousness over much” nor participation 
as proof of “slavery to the world and a love of pleasure in place. of 
love to God.” | 

‘If therefore the decision by general pretihen be, as the Rector sup- 


: poses, it would furnish no necessary ground of separation, unless: it - 


can be shown that no opinion or practice of the congregation should 
ever be avowed or followed, when in opposition to “ the knoy 
opinion and solemn public and private teaching of their minister ; 
or in other words, that any matter on which the Rector deems it ba 
duty to deliver a solemn and official opinion, at once ceases to bea 
a subject of discussion and inquiry, and by force of his opinion be- 
comes a point of faith, or an obligatory rule of conduct. . 
This proposition, we are sure that the Rector will not in terms 
maintain, and yet it seems to us that the reasons given for resigning 


=r. 


y ey 


his situation do necessarily presuppose a duty no less extensive, of 
submission to, and conformity of, opinion and practice with the Rec- 
tor, on the part of the congregation ; to this we can never yield ; to 


this we do not think the congregation will, or ought to yield. 

? Shortly then we think the matters referred to in Dr. Freeman’s pa- 

_per, are not things determined by the founder of our faith, that they 
belong to a large class of objects indifferent in themselves, involving 


mere questions of expediency, in regard to which it is an error “ to 
attempt to fix a definite limit of universal obligation,” and by, con- 
sequence that the differences adverted to by the Rector, furnish in 
themselves no just ground of interruption to full, affectionate, mutual, 
chitiatiian intercourse and communion, and are only just cause of se- 
paration on account of the mistaken views (as we think) of the Rec- 
tor in relation thereto. 

But we claim no right to pass judgment on the Rector’s opinions 


_on these matters,nor to think hardly of him because he does not 
" agree in opinion with us; we doubt not his sincerity—we respect his 


motives, we remember his virtues and his services, and having frankly 
stated the views we entertain in common with the great body of the 


congregation, we recommended to the vestry the adoption of ei ac- 


companying resolutions. 
G. E. BADGER. 
| J; H. BRYAN. 

June 25th, 1840. 


The pastoral connexion of the Rev. Dr. Freeman, with the con- 


= ‘gregation of Christ Church, which has now subsisted for eleven 
years having been dissolved by his r resignation, the wardens and ves- 
try deem it proper on the occasion to declare, that, in their judg- 


ment, Dr. Freeman during that whole period, has discharged the du- 


ties of his station with eminent ability and faithfulness ; that he has 


been greatly instrumental in enlarging the number and elvan the 
character of the members of the church ; that for his understanding 


and attainments as‘a Divine, and his Seti tos as a preacher, the 


_ congregation generally up to the very monment of his resignation felt 


great respect, for his person a warm attachment, and in his piety en- 


ge id confidence ; ; and that the vestry have no doubt these sentiments 


ere fully merited by the personal ena aet and christian character of 


Dr. Freeman: . a 


= 


~F ’ ag - 
K > 7 - 


ae 
Me 
¢ 


%.%, 


8 


Therefore, Resolved, That when the resignation of the Rev. Dr. 
Freeman was presented, we felt the deepest regret that he should for 
any cause have deemed it necessary to resign the charge of the con- 
gregation. 

Resolved, That Dr. Freeman has presided over this parish with 
great ability and uniform zeal and fidelity, and that his ministrations 
have been blessed with signal and very unusual success. 


